The Stark County Democrat. [volume] (Canton, Ohio) 1833-1912, 1887-03-31
JACOB VAUGHN,
A Prominent Citizen Of Stark County, Of
Trial for Perjury.
An Able Charge to the Jury from Judg'
RaIey--The Verdict Awaited with
Great Interest by the
People.


Jacob Vaughn, prominent farmer o.
MarlbtTO township, indicted for perjury
was submitted to the jury Thursday a
1890 The case has attracted unusuR
attention from the bar, and has been at
tended daily by a small swarm Of Marl
bOrO people, who h we taken deep in
terest in the proceedings. The indict
ment charged that the defendant swOrt
falsely In the diVolce case of Elizabeth
Vaughn against Jacob Vaughn, tried IL
June last; that he testified that he owed
$500 on a certain pTOmissory note, when
In fact he owed only $100, and that he
thus testified in order TO influence the
Court In determining the amount Of ali
mOny to be paid by him.
Judge Rsley's charge was listened tC
by many prominent members OF the bar
and was regarded rs very able d0Cu
ment. The following ts 8n RbbTevlatiOn
of the charge, containing the more i'm
pOrtant parts:
GENTLEMEN OF THE JURY:-The de-
fendant, JACOB Vaughn, is charged with
the crime of perjury. Before you can
find the defendant guilty as he stands
charged In this indictment in this case,
IL is necessary for the State to establish
by the evidence the following proper
tiOns:
l. That on the 18th day of JUue, 1885,
there was an action for divorce and
RlimOny pending In the Court Of Com
mon Pleas within and for Stark county,
Ohio, wherein MaFgery x Vaughn was
plaintiff and the said Jacob Vaughn was
defendant.
2. That an oath was duly administer.
ed to the defendant, Jacob Vaughn, by
John McGregOT, Clerk Of said Court, as
q witness in the trial OF said action.
That the defendant, Jacob Vaughn
after said oath WIS administered, testi-
fed ss a witness In the trial of said ac-
tion, on the 18th day Of June 1885, at
Stark county, Ohio.
4. That the said defendant as such
witness testified "that among the, ETC.,
las charged in the inGictment).
8. That said matters and things so
testified to by defendant we're material
matters on the trial Of said action.
6: That said matters and things go
testified to by defendant were false.
Z. That the defendant knew said mat
ters and things testified to by him to be
false at the time he so testified.
And l will say to you as matter of
law that 1t Is immaterial whether the
oath that was administered to the de-
fendsnt was administered by beng
sworn or by being affirmed. 1t appear
Ing to me that any variance between
the proof and the charge in the indict-
ment-if there is any variance on this
point, 1t is immateIial to the merits Of
the case, and Is In no manner prejudic-
iRl to the defendant.
If you find that there was an action
pending for divorce and alimODy as
stated In the indictment, / will say to
you as a matter Of law that the question
Os to the amount and value Of the prop
erty Of the defendant, as to the amount
Of the indebtedness Of the defendant,
and as to the amount Of liens or incum-
brances on that property at the time Of
she commencement of that action, or at
the time Of the trial Of that action, were
material questions In that action, and II
you can find that the defendant gave
evidence on oath In that case as stated
In the Indictment, and that such EVIL
denCe tend TO prove the amount or
value of said property, or the amount of
said Indebtedness, or the amount OF the
lien or membranes on said property,
different from what they In fact were, or
If you find that such evidence tended to
affect the credibility of any witness who
testified in said action, then you may
find that such evidence was material;
but II you find that no part Of such evil
dence tended to prove that the amount
or value Of said property, or the amount
Of membranes or liens on said prop
erty, or the amount of indebtedness Of
defendant, was different from what 1t In
fast was, and that no part Of 1t tended
to affect the credibllity Of any witness
who did testify In said action, then you
should find that such evidence was not
material.
Twill say to you that while 1t devolVes
upon the State to prove as one Of the
material averments In the Indictment
that the defendant did testify to one or
more Of the statements of tpsti-
m0ny contained In the indlctmet. Still
1t is not necessary that they should be
proved In the precise words alleged; 1t
Is sufficient II they are substantially
proved In language and effect as therein
stated, and would say to you that 1t Is
not necessary that the State should
prove that defendant testified to each
one and all the statements contained in
the indictment which 1t is alleged are
false. 1t is sufficient on this point
II the State proves that the defend
ant testified to one of more of said
statements.
As to proving the falsity of such test
imony will say to you, thai the fslsity
Of the evidence cannot be established by
the testimony of one witness alone; and
still 1t is not required that 1t shall be
established by the testimony Of two wit
nesses; 1t may be proved by the evidence
Of one witness and other cOrroberating
circumstances or facts cOrrOberating
such witness.
II you find that the said material
statements were false, you will next
proceed to inquire whether the defend
ant, at the time he 90 testified to
said false statements, knew that they
were false; the mere falsity will not do,
the defendant must have knowingly and
willfully .estiaed falsely In giving such
testimony. ~
At four o'clock, the houf Of going to
press, the jury is still out. They seem
90 be at dead lock and IL may take
several hours for them to reach an
agreement.